CNN is a very libral source for info, and is also a very one sided source for information. He feels that the article is absolute horseshit.

And to add to his comments, I also feel that it is absolute horseshit....and if you do research on the subject, you'll find that it's all hypothesised shit much like the "global cooling" of the 70's. And also, since Earth is getting so warm these days, I cannot help but ask why we're not setting any high temperature records?

"The report found it was "likely" -- "more likely than not" in some cases -- that manmade greenhouse gases have contributed to hotter days and nights"

They are using models to try and predict the weather in the future, the same models that don't predict weather correctly over three days. There are many variables, and by ignoring certain variables they can create whatever scenario they would like.

No record highs? I did a quick count from what I could find on weather.com and found for my area 21 record highs since 2000 and just 1 record low in that time.

All the data shows that the planet is warming. Maybe not where you're sitting, but on the over all average. Glaciers are melting, ocean levels are rising, climates are changing. The question is why?

A count from the same weather.com data found that from 1892-1899 there are 19 record highs, and 84 record lows still standing. It would be easy to site that as further evidence of "global warning" but much of that was due to the eruption of Krakatoa in 1893, which was certianly not caused by humans.

My dad talks about how when he was in school they taught that we were headed into an ice age. Maybe we have caused global warming, and have saved the world from an ice age in the process.

But I think it is something to be concerned about. I don't see how we can go on burning so much stuff (oil, coal, gas, ect...) and not have it effect the planet after a while. The earth is a mostly closed ecosystem, throw it out a whack and you can expect problems.

Yeah and most of the statistics you see are based on the rising average temperature of urban areas and the reports casually neglect something called "Urban Island Effect." The denser the population, the higher the temperature because of obvious reasons. Dig up the temperature records for rural areas and you'll be amazed to see that in some areas the temperature did, in fact, increase by a couple degrees over the last hundred years but other areas actually declined.

It's sensationalist reporting... just like everything else you see now a days. How can you trust the media when it comes to how serious a situation is when they're declaring Winter Storm Emergencies for two inches of snow...

A 21-page report from something called the "Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change" has been released today...in Paris, no less...and as expected, it's predictions are dire. According to the report: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level." Yeah right...we've heard all this before.

But the biggest bombshell here is this one: no matter what we do, global warming will not be reversed. It will go on for centuries, according to this report. The sea levels will continue to rise as polar ice caps melt. So I guess if Al Gore wins his Nobel Peace Prize, we'll still experience global warming. So much for riding to work everyday in your hybrid car...it's not doing a thing. The situation is futile, according to this report.

But really, it makes sense that the global warming crowd would come to this conclusion. After all, global warming is a religion. The anti-capitalist enviro-nazis don't ever want the problem to be solved. After all, if global warming were to be solved tomorrow, what would they blame the United States for? They'd have to find some other reason.

Sorry .. I'm still a skeptic. In no particular order here are just a few of the reasons why I'm not buying this man-made global warming scare:

The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.

Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.

Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.

The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?

It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.

It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?

How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.

Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.

The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.

The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.

Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.

Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.

What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?

Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"

Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?

In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.

There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.

Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.

Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.

Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.

During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.

Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?

Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?

On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Hey ... I could go on. There's much more where that came from. But I need to get ready to go on the air. Just know that many of the strongest proponents of this "man-made" global warming stuff are dedicated opponents to capitalism and don't feel all that warm and fuzzy about the United States.

CNN is a very libral source for info, and is also a very one sided source for information. He feels that the article is absolute horseshit.

And to add to his comments, I also feel that it is absolute horseshit....and if you do research on the subject, you'll find that it's all hypothesised shit much like the "global cooling" of the 70's. And also, since Earth is getting so warm these days, I cannot help but ask why we're not setting any high temperature records?

It is true that many of these studies are somewhat one-sided due to the funding that is fueling them. But I encourage anyone to find a report that contradicts the hundreds of global warming reports out there that is legitimately funded. And I dont mean find a report from some shitty website like crooksandliars.com or something. A legitimate source.

I think it is important for all of us to be cognizant of this phenomenon, real or not, and to have rational discussion about it. As a scientist (one of the few on the site from what I can tell) I may be a bit one-sided on this topic myself. But I do feel strongly that we can do something about it if we consider the potential ramifications of our actions.

The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.

Who's lining who's pockets? It looks like the oil industry is being outspent, so what's the rub?

And if the enviro groups are spending 3:1 on PACs, how much are they spending to buy universities? Any post-grad university work I've seen is funded by a corporation or private fund. The paying group pays for the research on the field they are interested in, and will pull funding if they aren't getting what they need.

If the enviro groups are pumping money 3:1 towards universities like they are the PACs do you think there will be more papers written about the ills of global warming, or providing a realistic study?

Would Karmonos continue to fund scientists that decided that the money they were getting for researching breast cancer would be better spent on the next viagra? Hell no. How about the tobacco industry supporting researchers that showed that smoking was bad for you? Nope. So, do you think a university taking money from an enviro group (which is paying the Dr's stipends, and for his lab, and grad students, etc) is going to find anything other than global warming? Nope.

Big deal - it's been changing throughout the history of the planet (think "ice age").

The planet is virtually a living thing, and experiences climatic cycles. Is it possible that the aggregate impact of man has influenced this cycle (i.e. either accelerating or delaying the next cyclic change)? Certainly it's possible. However, there are many other inputs into the climatic cycle that man cannot / does not control (dust storms, vocanic eruptions, meteor strikes, solar output, etc...) that have a much larger impact.

It's the same of kind of collective narcissism that makes people get excited about species becoming extinct. They've been emerging and becoming extinct before we were here - it's a natural process. The earth is always changing.

Global warming is a theory - a legitimate, but as yet unproven theory that many (mostly non-scientific) people have elevated to "fact" without the supporting data. And the vigor with which this theory is advanced (and skeptics of it are attacked and villified) remind me of the Spanish Inquistion.